From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stephen Berman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Terminology questions Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 20:30:56 +0200 Message-ID: <87ppv216an.fsf@rosalinde.fritz.box> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1372703793 6095 80.91.229.3 (1 Jul 2013 18:36:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 18:36:33 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jul 01 20:36:33 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Utixb-0004cw-9C for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Jul 2013 20:36:23 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37279 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Utixa-0005HE-ME for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Jul 2013 14:36:22 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53878) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UtixN-0004wt-JM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Jul 2013 14:36:19 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UtixG-0006jh-Fp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Jul 2013 14:36:09 -0400 Original-Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.19]:64467) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UtixG-0006fJ-25 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Jul 2013 14:36:02 -0400 Original-Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.34]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx002) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0ME0gb-1V1k9k1211-00HLNS for ; Mon, 01 Jul 2013 20:30:59 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 01 Jul 2013 18:30:58 -0000 Original-Received: from i59F576CA.versanet.de (EHLO rosalinde.fritz.box) [89.245.118.202] by mail.gmx.net (mp034) with SMTP; 01 Jul 2013 20:30:58 +0200 X-Authenticated: #20778731 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+w4QdvqZGwobzcWK6449fbbKvv9xU8osKvIvPxlt GOhdFtOlMBpEl2 User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic] X-Received-From: 212.227.15.19 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:161423 Archived-At: I noticed that Paul Eggert corrected, in revno 113232, a number of spelling errors and miswordings by me in todo-mode.el (thanks, and sorry for not being more careful). However, I'm not sure about two changes in wording. One case is from a doc string where I wrote: "You can persistantly [sic] change the order of the category at point...." Instead of correcting the spelling Paul replaced the word: "You can permanently change the order of the category at point...." What I intended to get across is that the change can persist beyond the current session, but not that it is permanent, i.e., can only be changed once and for all. "Permanently" seems to suggest the latter, but maybe it's clear enough from the context. I guess "persistently" most commonly suggests repetition or insistence, neither of which is appropriate here, but I was thinking the adverb use can also just imply "long-lasting", like the adjective "persistent" can. Anyway, if people think "persistently" is wrong here, and "permanently" doesn't lead to the expectation that only one change is possible, then the latter is fine with me. The other case involves two places where I wrote "cross-categorial", which Paul changed to "cross-category": "And you can build cross-categorial lists of items that satisfy various criteria." "Display a cross-categorial list of items filtered by FILTER." I'm familiar with the term "cross-categorial" from linguistics, where AFAIK it is frequently used; but I was till now unaware of "cross-category", and it sounds strange to me. I googled both and to my surprise, "cross-category" has almost 20 times as many hits as "cross-categorial", and the uses of the latter do seem to be largely confined to linguistics, while most uses of "cross-category" seem to come from economics and market analysis (which I guess explains the web search statistics; though I did see other uses of it, including one from a linguistics paper;). I also checked Google Scholar and here, too, "cross-category" predominates, though the ratio is less than 4:1. Since I'm also writing a Texinfo manual for Todo mode, which will use one of these terms, I'd like to use the one that is most appropriate. If there's no consensus here, I'd prefer to use "cross-categorial", but if most people think "cross-category" is better, I'll defer to the majority. Steve Berman